Before its takeover of Hong Kong, Beijing promised the people of Hong Kong and the international community the following things.
First, China would abide by the "one country, two systems" model, under which Hong Kong would be allowed to maintain political, economic and social systems different from China's for at least 50 years. Second, Hong Kong would be ruled by Hong Kong people, meaning that, according to the Basic Law, the chief executive and Legislative Council members would be locally elected, and would not be officials appointed by China.
The reason that the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (
Since its return to China in July 1997, the situation in Hong Kong has deteriorated from the time when it was a British colony. Although people still dance and gamble on horses in Hong Kong, business has been hollowed out, the economy is sinking, unemployment is soaring, real estate prices are falling sharply and personal assets are shrinking. People are unhappy with Beijing-appointed Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's (董建華) performance. However, despite Tung's approval rating of not much more than 10 percent, he is still firmly backed by Beijing.
As the Chinese government has kept none of its promises, 500,000 Hong Kong people took to the streets on July 1 last year. They protested the Tung administration's plan to force the passage of legislation based on Article 23 of the Basic Law, aimed at restricting people's freedom. Under such pressure, Beijing could not but order the local government to withdraw the bill.
On Jan. 1, hundreds of thousands of people once again marched through downtown Hong Kong to ask for democracy. They demanded that the chief executive be directly elected. They did not want a candidate appointed by Beijing and elected via indirect elections. They also requested that all seats in the Legislative Council be filled through direct popular elections.
Beijing ignored these appeals.
Beijing's new restrictions on Hong Kong's self-rule policy means that many Democratic Party members, such as legislators Martin Lee (李柱銘) and Emily Lau (劉慧卿), will not qualify for the next legislative election.
Why is China so afraid of Hong Kong's democracy? Some believe that China's leaders are worried that the democratization of Hong Kong and Taiwan will advance political reform in China, encouraging the Chinese to demand direct elections for mayors, provincial governors, representatives to the congress and even president.
The Beijing authorities have an indescribable fear of real democracy. They believe in one-party dictatorship with political power in the hands of a few. The "centralized democracy" they have advocated is nothing but a gimmick that facilitates the attempt of the few to exercise control over the majority.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong democracy advocates, such as Lee and Lau, still support the "one country, two systems" model and oppose Taiwan's independence.
Hopefully, they will come to understand that the existence of a democratic Taiwan is beneficial to Hong Kong because it places some restrictions on Chinese actions in Hong Kong.
Absurdly, some people in Taiwan also support the "one country, two systems" model. But just look at what has happened in Hong Kong over the past few years. Beijing's promises are completely worthless. In view of the Hong Kong example, I call on Taiwanese people to open their eyes.
Parris Chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS